Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Mike Plusch writes: > ConciseXML is a new syntax. It is *not* the XML 1.0 > syntax, however, any XML 1.0 document is a valid > ConciseXML document. > > According to the first definition of "compatibility" in > Merriam-Webster: > compatibility: capable of existing together in harmony > > I believe ConciseXML fits that definition. Normal techie usage, then, would be to say that XML 1.0 is compatible with ConciseXML, not that ConciseXML is compatible with XML 1.0. Note, also, that the W3C holds a trademark on "XML" and can use it to prevent any potentially misleading uses of the term. I'd recommend finding a name without "XML" in it sooner, so that you're not forced to change a lot more material later. Something like "ConciseML" would probably be OK. Finally, I don't really see the need -- somebody suggests this kind of thing every few months, and then it just dies quietly. It's also worth noting that SGML allowed extensive syntactic abbreviation, and SGML failed; XML forbade it, and XML succeeded. That's not the only reason that SGML failed, of course, but it was a contributing factor (SGML tools were just too hard to write, and markup errors were often too hard to locate and fix). All the best, David -- David Megginson, david@m..., http://www.megginson.com/
|
